Coercion, Violation of Privacy and Everyday Difficulties as the Cause of Patient Refusal Treatment in Psychiatric Hospitals in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment in a psychiatric hospital is accompanied by a restriction of independence, violation of privacy, coercion, which causes displeasure of patients. The aim of the study was to verify the scale of everyday problems, violations of privacy and coercion in a psychiatric hospital to develop recommendations for the organization of a therapeutic environment. The study included 191 patients in a psychiatric hospital. Anonymous questionnaire was used. Statistical processing of the database was carried out by nonparametric methods. The majority of patients (67%) estimated the conditions of stay in a psychiatric hospital at 7-10 points (10-point scale), but half of them complained about the need for self-purchase of drugs. A full night's sleep was disturbed by the snoring of others (56.5%), an uncomfortable bed (36.6%), bright light (26.2%). The poor diet was indicated by 45.5% of patients. Patients indicated coercion by medical staff: retention (11.5%), forced administration of drugs (12%), coercion to consent to treatment (22%), refusal to discharge from hospital (35.1%). It was reported that there was a violation of privacy in the toilet (36.6%), difficulties to observe the intimate hygiene (16.8%). These problems caused patients to refuse inpatient treatment if there was the possibility of outpatient treatment (65.2% of men and 52.6% of women). Despite the low level of claims of patients to living conditions, it is important to respect their rights in psychiatric hospitals to privacy, creating a comfortable living space, the organization of differentiated methods of observation by medical staff.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".